Stanford Journal of International Relations
Cleaning Up After Clean Energy:
Hazardous Waste in the Solar Industry
{
By Ishan Nath
}
In the rising wave of solar energy, some have begun to sound the alarm on the possibility
of hazardous waste escaping into the environment. In response, solar firms have begun
planning and forming coalitions to recycle used panels before their materials can leach
out, trumpeting their efforts to guarantee life-cycle sustainability. But the focus on
dealing with used panels threatens to obscure a more pressing concern from waste in
the manufacturing process. With the production of silicon base materials exploding
in China – where anecdotal evidence shows a lack of safety regulations – solar firms
and regulators must shift their focus to ensuring safe production processes, even if the
international situation can be difficult. Until these issues are properly addressed, a
shadow of doubt will hang over the true environmental impacts of solar energy.
The demand for 'green' energy has raised both hopes and profits in the solar energy industry. But
will the creation of toxic waste cripple the industry just as it emerges into prominence?
6 • Spring 2010
US Air Force, Public Domain
D
Solar Waste
espite the competing interests of the United
States and China, President Barack Obama
does share at least one vision with Chinese
Premier Wen Jiabao: both leaders expect the solar
industry to positively impact their countries in coming
decades. Their governments, as a result, have begun to
direct significant investments towards expanding solar
infrastructure, following the lead of several European
markets. The solar industry has rapidly espanded its
small market share and has shown signs of greater
potential.
These hopes for a viable source of renewable
energy, however, have recently been tempered with a
word of caution. Toxic waste, experts say, is something
the solar industry must watch out for, as detailed by
the watchdog nonprofit Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
(SVTC) in a widely circulated new report. Essentially,
solar firms face two dilemmas concerning their
hazardous chemicals. How can the production process
ensure that panels are manufactured without leaking
waste and how will they be disposed of after a lifetime
of use? These concerns, though fairly manageable in
and of themselves, exist in a complex international
web of competing political, economic, and scientific
interests. Given this complexity, most solar firms
have focused on the more straightforward of the two
problems: end-of-life recycling. But in creating a fairly
solid foundation for addressing this issue, the industry
has largely overlooked investigative reports revealing
current problems with production waste, particularly
pertaining to Chinese manufacturing. Until these
concerns receive more attention, promises of panel
recycling will quell any public anxiety, preventing the
creation of necessary safeguards to stop rogue firms
from unsafe manufacturing practices. To fully address
its hazardous waste issues, the solar industry must move
forward aggressively not only with its development of
panel recycling programs, but also with steps to address
more pressing issues in the production process.
The first question facing solar firms is how to
Ishan Nath is a sophomore at Stanford University doublemajoring in Economics and Earth Systems with a focus
on energy science and technology. While pursuing these
academic interests through coursework and extracurricular
activities, Ishan aspires to get involved in environmental
policy research or go to graduate school in economics
after college. When he is not studying economics and
environmental issues, Ishan enjoys running and playing
basketball.
address the prospect of used panels inundating landfills
and leaching toxic waste into the environment. When
a solar module outlives its usefulness 20 to 25 years
after installation, its disposal must be carefully handled
to avoid contamination from the enclosed chemicals.
But, given examples from similar industries, there is no
guarantee that this procedure will take place. More than
two-thirds of American states have no existing laws
requiring electronics recycling and the US currently
exports 80 percent of its electronic waste (e-waste)
to developing countries that lack infrastructure to
manage it.1 Thus, by urging solar companies to plan
for proper disposal of decommissioned panels, SVTC
draws attention to an issue that currently remains
unaddressed. The Coalition makes an appeal for
legislation requiring Extended Producer Responsibility,
which would force firms to take back and recycle their
used products, but in the absence of such requirements,
is the solar industry ready for the eventual onrush of
solar panels?2
“I don’t think enough people are thinking
about [recycling used solar panels],” said Jamie Porges,
COO and Founder of Radiance Solar, an Atlantabased startup. “I’m sure there are people who have
thought about it, but I don’t think there’s been enough
open discussion and I haven’t heard a plan.”3 Another
executive familiar with the solar industry frames the
problem more urgently. Steve Newcomb, Founder and
CEO of “One Block Off the Grid,” a firm that connects
consumers with the solar industry, calls the issue of
used solar modules “a big deal, and one that nobody’s
thought a lot about yet.” If nothing is done, he warns,
the situation could escalate into “a major disaster.”4
Despite this initial doubt about dealing with
used panels, solid progress is already underway.
The European solar industry has developed a
comprehensive commitment to handle solar waste.
Through the formation of the PV Cycle Association,
a group of firms comprising more than 80 percent of
the European solar market have signed a voluntary
pledge to take back and recycle used solar panels.5
Under the agreement, companies will label products
with instructions to return end-of-life modules, and
promise to collect an ambitious 65 percent of units
sold since 1990, and recycle 85 percent of the waste.
A committee including the European Parliament,
European Commission, and European Photovoltaic
Industry Association will monitor members to track
achievement of these goals.6 Even with these strict
guidelines, PV Cycle already counts over 40 companies
Vol. XI | No. 2 • 7
Stanford Journal of International Relations
among its ranks and has more than doubled in size
over the past year.7 As The New York Times noted, “the
solar industry in Europe is not taking any chances with
its reputation as a clean business.”8 More importantly,
with signatories including GE, BP, Sanyo, Sharp, and
First Solar, the rapidly expanding organization has
already made strides at a global level.9 In fact, as of
September 2009, seven of the eight largest solar cell
producers in the world were members.10 Thus, at the
very least, PV Cycle represents a strong start toward
collectively overcoming the challenge of used solar
panels.
This initial movement towards a recycling
agenda fails to bring complete assurance, because
the vast majority of companies have yet to actually
implement recycling schemes. While significant
portions of the industry have taken PV Cycle’s pledge,
only the German firm Deutsche Solar AG and the
Arizona-based First Solar have thus far implemented
active take-back and recycling programs.11 On the
positive side, there is some real impact even in this
limited implementation; First Solar leads the world in
production with a 13 percent total PV market share.12
Actively touting their commitment to “Product Life
Cycle Management” as a part of their overall mission,
the company has installed industrial-scale recycling
facilities at each of their plants and takes panels back
at no cost to consumers.13 In the process, First Solar
recovers all components of the panels, including 95
percent of semiconductor material and 90 percent of the
glass.14 This program has earned the firm widespread
recognition and could serve as the example that spurs
the rest of the industry to follow suit. The challenge,
however, will lie in convincing other companies that
recycling is worthwhile.
In this drive to establish recycling programs, the
costs of reusing old panels in the production process
should not be an impediment. Porges says he holds
“some confidence that [reusing panels] is going to be
possible, because of the high value of the material in the
panels.” Indeed, since valuable metals such as purified
silicon and cadmium telluride can be recovered from
old modules, experts predict production from recycled
ingredients should cost no more than using raw
materials while using only one-third as much energy.15
Furthermore, David Appleyard, Associate Editor of
renewableenergyworld.com, claims this would result
in “no apparent loss of performance.”16 Unfortunately,
the National Photovoltaics Environmental Research
Center offers a different view, positing that “currently,
8 • Spring 2010
economic incentives may be inadequate to move the
PV industry into voluntary recycling.”17 It is possible
that government subsidies or public pressure to match
the recycling reputation of competitors will eventually
produce sufficient incentive to overcome any cost
disparity; if not, the Research Center also predicts that
future large-scale needs could be “economically served
by centralized strategies.”18 This projection relies on
the theory that firms bringing their recycling initiatives
together would benefit from economies of scale when
sharing the fixed costs of recycling infrastructure.
Since PV Cycle brings together solar firms from around
the world with a common purpose, the Association
seems like an effective way to apply this approach and
eventually bring recycling costs down.
Fortunately for the solar industry, these
programs have no need to scale up in the short-term.
Since major installation of solar energy systems did not
begin until the 1990s, the 20- to 25-year lifecycle of
panels means that end-of-life recycling will not become
a major issue until about 2020. Certainly, an industry
that grew 58 percent in 2008 with $17.2 billion in global
revenues cannot be taken lightly, but the time-lag of
waste accumulation reduces its exigency as a pressing
issue.19 This fact gets cited frequently in almost all
serious discussions of the subject, from the National
Photovoltaics Environment Research Center’s report
to PV Cycle’s website. With ample time to prepare, the
industry seems set to concentrate more heavily on the
imminent tasks of becoming more cost-competitive
and increasing its miniscule share of the energy market.
The current US track record of electronics waste
disposal, however, must serve as a cautionary example.
With the current careless exporting of e-waste and the
fact that the US stands along with Afghanistan and
Haiti as one of only three countries not to have signed
the Basel Convention outlawing international trade of
hazardous waste, the situation does not inspire much
confidence. Preliminary signs of effort are not enough
to assure that solar recycling will be able to scale up
when the large volume of used panels arrives. But with
companies representing a significant portion of the
market making explicit promises to that end as part
of an ever-growing global organization, it is safe to
say that end-of-life recycling for solar panels is not yet
behind the curve. Time, at least for now, gives the solar
industry room to maneuver.
Recycling used panels, however, must be
considered as only part of the picture in an industry
increasingly intertwined with overseas production,
Solar Waste
particularly in China. For one
thing, US firms often export
manufacturing to China to
reduce costs, as affirmed by Dr.
Michael Filler, Assistant Professor
of Chemical Engineering at the
Georgia Institute of Technology.
“We’re definitely buying solar
panels made in China,” said Filler.
“A lot of American companies
have
plants
in
China.”20
Furthermore,
the
Chinese
industry has seen burgeoning
growth that has led to significant
US imports. A company called
Suntech Power Holdings, for
example, has become the second
largest solar firm in the world,
JosefLehmkuhl, Creative Commons
while exporting 98 percent of its Management of electronic waste still leaves much to be desired. Will
panels and building a 12 percent waste from the solar industry be handled any differently?
US market share.21, 22 So powerful
persistent denials of wrongdoing from the factory,
has been the charge led by Chinese firms and stimulated independent, nationally accredited lab tests confirmed
by their government, that China is projected to become the claims of leaked toxic pollutants by the villagers.
the largest solar producer in the world in the next five
The Post also reported that industry sources indicate
years.23 And as China continues its push to become
that “other solar plants in China have not installed
the “Silicon Valley of renewables,” the American solar technology to prevent pollutants from getting into the
market will only become more integrated with Chinese environment,” implying that this anecdote does not
production.24
refer to an isolated incident.26
Unfortunately, links to Chinese manufacturing
Why hasn’t any action been taken to prevent
raise the specter of dubious environmental practices.
this pollution? On top of the Chinese government’s
While the prospect of used solar panels looms
underlying aversion to environmental regulations,
somewhere on the horizon of American consumers,
the Post reports that “there's such a severe shortage of
villagers in China are forced to grapple with the
polysilicon that the government is willing to overlook
toxic effects of solar-grade silicon production today.
this issue for now.”27 Indeed, persistent shortages of
The Washington Post reported these side effects in
purified silicon in the face of escalating demand have
a recent article that spotlighted a small village in the
created a lucrative profit opportunity in the market –
central province of Henan overcome by a steady flow
particularly for Chinese firms willing to cut corners and
of silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of the polysilicon reduce costs. As of 2006, 91 percent of the solar industry
manufactured by Luoyang Zhonggui, a nearby
still relied on silicon for producing its panels.28 While
subsidiary of the solar behemoth Suntech.25 An these numbers have declined, experts say the “consensus
extremely toxic substance, silicon tetrachloride renders
is that crystalline silicon is and will remain for at least
crops infertile, causes skin burns and increases the
a long decade the workhorse of this growing market.”29
likelihood of lung disease, and transforms into acids
With 30 percent annual growth anticipated over the
and poisonous hydrogen chloride gas when exposed to
next ten years, projections show that 300,000 metric
air. Ron Bingyan, a professor of materials science at
tons of annual silicon production will be necessary to
Hebei Industrial University, says “It is like dynamite – it
meet the growing demand.30,31 Current global annual
is poisonous, it is polluting.” Almost every day, workers
production, however, only amounts to 120,000 tons,
dump buckets of this bubbling white liquid toxin over which would explain why the price of silicon recently
the land as the villagers, most of whom earn about $200
exploded from $20 to $450 per kilogram.32, 33 To exploit
in annual income, are powerless to stop it. Despite
Vol. XI | No. 2 • 9
Stanford Journal of International Relations
High Contrast, Creative Commons
Under intense competition, Chinese based manufacturing of solar panels has likely bypassed both safety and environmental standards.
this opportunity, Chinese companies plan to expand
their silicon production fivefold by 2012, from 20,000
to 100,000 tons, which would account for almost half
of the world’s total production.34 Twenty new plants
are already under construction as venture capital pours
in, taking advantage of generous subsidies, free land,
and low-interest loans from the government, thereby
assuring that production growth will continue to
accelerate.35
Chinese expansion of silicon production
triggers alarms because of the reckless steps firms
are taking to cut costs. The US and other developed
countries have shown that polysilicon manufacturing
can be an entirely safe process that recycles silicon
tetrachloride back into a base material for production.
Cost remains the only problem. A Chinese journal,
the China Chemical Reporter, notes that the “cost in
the hydrogenation of silicon tetrachloride [makes]
commercial application of the technology hard to
be conducted.”36 With an enormous waste stream
producing four times as much silicon tetrachloride as
10 • Spring 2010
actual polysilicon and a process that requires heating
the chemical up to 1800° F, proper safety measures
include significant capital investment as well as
persistently high energy use.37,38 Thus, the Reporter
calls “comprehensive utilization of silicon tetrachloride
. . . an issue of increasing concern . . . [that] has seriously
constrained the sound development of polycrystalline
silicon and solar energy sectors in China.”39 This
conclusion seems odd, however, in light of the lack of
concern for such matters in China reported by the Post.
For instance, Shi Jun, a former photovoltaic technology
researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, claims
Chinese companies have been producing polysilicon
at $21,000-$56,000 per ton, far below the $84,500
necessary to cover proper environmental protection.40
In addition to cost concerns, convenience and time
might also be dissuading firms from instituting proper
procedures. To hasten the growth of profits, many
manufacturing plants in China have been launching in
under a year, less than half the time required to install
suitable infrastructure.41 Other factors of expediency
Solar Waste
might play a role as well, as observed by one silicon
industry source:
Manufacture of ultrapure silicon is a very
sophisticated process,… What if that equipment is
not available to you locally? Or if it is, do you have
all the training and skilled service people who could
make sure it was operating properly?42
Whatever the excuse, Chinese companies have
certainly been realizing the financial success to be able
to afford more prudence. Suntech, for example, became
the first privately-owned Chinese firm to be traded on
the New York Stock Exchange, and has seen its value
skyrocket to the point that its founder Shi Zhengrong
is now the richest man in China.43,44,45 It comes as no
surprise, then, that Jim Bashkin, Adjunct Professor
of Chemistry at the University of Missouri, calls it
“wrong to think the funds aren’t available in China to
implement this waste processing technology, it is simply
a question of priorities (and greed).”46 Sustaining and
expanding dominance over the solar market clearly
qualifies as one of these priorities. In the drive to do
so, “one of their key strategies is to reduce the cost of
silicon.”47 Firms such as Suntech have been achieving
this goal with alarming success, as noted by several
academic papers and newspapers.48,49 The New York
Times even asserted that, “American manufacturers
fear being overwhelmed by cheap Chinese panels.”50
These remarkably low prices mount more evidence
on the allegations of impropriety, raising the obvious
question of where these cost cuts are coming from.
To be fair, McCue points out that lower labor costs
in China might play a significant role, but the widely
documented “aggressive” efforts at cost-reduction
still make suspicions of negligence seem warranted.
Moreover, with “exceptional” profits that sometimes
exceed 300 percent of costs, such disregard seems
entirely indefensible.51,52
US manufacturers of solar-grade silicon would
never be able to replicate the actions of the Chinese.
Porges stresses that “production in the United States is
a highly, highly, highly regulated process” and McCue
misses no opportunity to emphasize the extensive
waste management efforts of his company. Shi
categorically contrasts the US market with Chinese
manufacturers, claiming that if silicon tetrachloride
poisoning “happened in the United States, you'd
probably be arrested.”53 Even with the best efforts at
strict government regulation, however, government
action can never be fully relied on. According to Filler,
“the federal government can always be five or ten years
behind technology.”
Meanwhile, even completely safe domestic
manufacturing would not extricate the US solar market
from responsibility for the situation in China. More and
more firms from the two countries are collaborating on
their efforts. Some of these stories, such as First Solar’s
deal to build the world’s largest solar farm in China,
include US manufacturing.54 Most, however, deal with
taking advantage of China as a manufacturing hub. For
example, Duke Energy, a leading US energy company,
has signed on with two Chinese firms for the purpose
of testing new technologies at lower costs.55
With his experience in the solar industry,
Newcomb offers insight into the attitude behind the
actions of solar firms. “Firms in the solar industry are
absolutely ruthless,” said Newcomb. “They take the
level of cutthroat competition to a whole different level
than companies in other markets.”
With high production costs that already
constrain solar to only 0.1 percent of the overall energy
market, such vigorous rivalry is hardly a surprise.56
Some firms, such as Suntech, simply seem to have bigger
concerns than the health of Chinese villagers. And with
a goal of collaborating on clean energy growth, not to
mention a heavy economic dependence on China, the
American government does too – meaning it certainly
will not want to start a dispute over the regulation of
polysilicon.57 Therefore, as long as Chinese plants can
sell silicon for low prices, demand will exist regardless
of any collateral damage.
Could emerging ventures to move away from
silicon provide an answer? Young believes new
directions in solar materials can be attributed largely
to the production costs of silicon that are heavily
influenced by disposal of hazardous waste. And the
market share of silicon has, indeed, begun to falter, but
Filler offers caution against expectations of sweeping
changes:
If people have already invested billions of dollars
for a particular material, even if it turns out to be a
little more expensive, the industry doesn’t want to
change.58
Nonetheless, thin-film technologies using cadmium
telluride have seen expansion as an alternative to
silicon-based panels. First Solar utilizes cadmium
telluride (CdTe), and several companies including GE
plan to switch into the field, citing lower costs as their
motive.59 But unfortunately, this potential “solution”
Vol. XI | No. 2 • 11
Stanford Journal of International Relations
might lead to even bigger problems. Cadmium is a
carcinogen deemed “extremely toxic” by the EPA and
can cause lung cancer as well as kidney, liver, and bone
damage from inhalation.60
“I would say a far bigger concern [than silicon
tetrachloride] is cadmium telluride,” said Filler. “In
a perfect world at room temperature, this is a stable
compound that’s not going to degrade and leach into the
ground or water. I think there are a number of studies
where people suggest this. However, in my experience
with mother nature, it’s not always so simple. I worry a
lot about cadmium, even though the form in a solar cell
is distinct from that of classic cases of poisoning. The
degradation hasn’t been studied enough and I wouldn’t
be surprised if one day it decays on people’s roofs and
in landfills and causes major health problems.” Filler
goes on to raise a further concern by mentioning that
thin-film cells also require a layer of cadmium sulfide,
whose production process creates a “large volume” of
dissolved cadmium waste.
In an opposing view, the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory fulfills Filler’s expectation of
existing research testifying to the safety of cadmium.
The institution’s website states that “CdTe PV modules
do not present any risks to health and the environment.”
In fact, it claims that they “provide a solution to the
challenge of what to do with the cadmium generated
from zinc refining.” Cadmium, the argument goes, gets
produced anyway in the process of zinc production.
Thus, putting the chemical in solar panels represents
a safer alternative to the storage or landfills it would
otherwise occupy.61,62 Does Filler disagree with this
assessment?
“At scale, yes,” he said. “Over time, we’re
going to want to use so much of it that we’ll want to
produce more of it anyway. Maybe now it makes sense
to people, but you can argue it should be stored in a
central location instead of putting it on everybody’s
rooftop.” Furthermore, Filler indicated that the
extreme rarity of tellurium will likely prevent the use of
cadmium telluride panels from overtaking the market.
Thus, between its potentially devastating toxicity and
questionable feasibility of growth, cadmium telluride
comes with its own considerable shortcomings as
silicon’s main competitor.
Given the evidence, reliance on safe, expansive
production from either polysilicon or cadmium
telluride solar panels seems questionable. If issues
linger with the two technologies currently dominating
the market, what steps can be taken to alleviate
12 • Spring 2010
environmental safety concerns? For a start, the
currently low level of awareness of issues involved with
solar cell manufacturing must become a key part of
the conversation. Despite the facts brought forth by
the Post feature and others, silicon tetrachloride waste
remains almost unheard of in much of the industry.
McCue, for example, manages environmental affairs for
a silicon manufacturer who received the EPA’s National
Environmental Performance Award, and yet admitted
he was “not familiar with silicon tetrachloride.”63 Even
specific analysis of the Chinese PV industry, such as
a 78 page report published by Malardalen University
in Sweden and several articles in the New York Times,
makes numerous references to the low costs of Chinese
production without ever speculating about firms
bypassing environmental safety.64,65,66,67 Clearly, the
exigency elucidated by the Post report has failed to take
hold on a wide scale.
Ironically, focus on end-of-life recycling
seems to be a key factor in obscuring concerns about
production safety. The simple elegance of panel
recycling as a solution to end-of-life concerns makes it
an instant and communicable talking point. Anyone,
no matter how unfamiliar with the topic, can identify
with the image of mounds of unwieldy metal solar
panels requiring disposal. As a result, press coverage
of panel recycling routinely thrusts it to the forefront
of the conversation, mentioning manufacturing waste
only as a brief aside or afterthought. Solar companies
catch onto this fact, and thus pursue the publicity
boost from committing to create a recycling program
by joining PV Cycle. The way it stands, such a promise
prompts the instant triumph of a responsible image, no
matter what happens on the production side.
Putting too much stock in the pledge to recycle
opens the potential for firms to hide behind their
recycling reputations while cutting corners during
the manufacturing process. Earlier this year, Suntech
turned this risk into reality by joining PV Cycle and
subsequently touting the value their company places
upon “sustainability and minimizing the impact ...
on the environment.”68 As a member of the leading
group promoting sustainable solutions to solar waste,
Suntech cemented its reputation as an environmentally
conscientious business. But because its commitment
to PV Cycle applies only to end-of-life recycling,
its participation opens the possibility that Suntech
can fulfill its obligations while continuing to dump
buckets of silicon tetrachloride onto helpless Chinese
villages. To be sure, this does not imply that other
Solar Waste
members of PV Cycle engage in unsafe manufacturing
practices. Nor should the participation of Chinese
firms in recycling programs be undermined. Both
Suntech and Yingli Green Energy, another sizable firm,
have signed already, opening the prospects for proper
environmental safety to take hold in China and pull the
country’s industry in a more responsible and positive
direction.69 But to really make solar energy around the
world safe, PV Cycle must expand its scope to monitor
supply-chain waste as well.
Until they do, firms such as Suntech will
continue to use their commitment to future recycling
to pull the wool over people’s eyes as they siphon off
untreated waste in China. TIME provided the perfect
illustration of this phenomenon by naming Suntech’s
Zhengrong one of its “Heroes of the Environment.”70
When a colossally wealthy executive engaging in
practices endangering the health and welfare of his
own country’s poor can be called a hero, something in
the conversation needs to change. If Suntech wants to
trumpet its sustainability by joining PV Cycle, it should
be encouraged and applauded for doing so, but only as
long as the Association can supplement the inspectors
monitoring its recycling goals with frequent visits to its
members’ silicon plants.
This modification to PV Cycle would come as
part of an overall shift of focus from end-of-life recycling
to manufacturing waste. To be sure, recycling used
panels remains an important issue. The solar industry
must expand its commitment to PV Cycle and adhere
to the goals it has set for itself, but with several years to
plan and a feasible solution at hand, at least the path is
clear. On the other hand, waste from the raw materials
and production processes presents a complex, more
pressing challenge, as it already affects large numbers of
people today. The extent of the problem remains largely
unknown, and the solutions even murkier. And yet, the
images of Chinese villagers suffering from the effect of
this problem make it strikingly urgent. Addressing the
situation will require international efforts in business,
politics, and science, and none of these will come forth
until the questions surrounding manufacturing waste
enter the limelight. Ideally, this publicity would bring
with it enough bad press to convince Suntech and
other potential offenders to stop their profiteering, thus
alleviating the pressing issue of silicon tetrachloride
waste while the industry diversified organically into
different forms of panels.
But in the mean time, while Chinese silicon
dominates the solar market and governments,
businesses, and international agencies fail to bring
Chinese production into line, what ought to follow in
the search for solutions? As an academic, Filler notes
that “good regulation is hard to come by . . . That’s why
I think about it from the research side – how can we
design solar cells that in their manufacturing and in
their whole lifecycle are nontoxic and easily degrade?”
Efforts in this vein have certainly been pursued.
Startups in solar abound, constantly churning out
unique and creative ideas such as the “solar paint” and
“solar ink” looked into by a firm called Nanosolar.71
Such innovations fill the imagination with possibilities
that might replace the current set of uncertain options
and propel the industry ahead. For the time being,
though, these possibilities are just that: possible but
not yet a reality. Surely, these initiatives will grow
and expand with countries around the world pushing
to make solar a significant part of its energy mix.
Carbon-free, sustainable, trendy, and growing steadily
less expensive, the solar industry seems well on its way
there. And even with the side effects discussed here,
solar energy remains far cleaner, for the atmosphere
and for human health, than burning coal.72 Solar will
expand its power in the energy market. But as this
ascent occurs, the global players involved, from firms
to governments to international agencies, must take
responsibility to ensure it expands the right way. Until
it finds a way to guarantee that the production of solar
panels will not poison Chinese villagers and that their
use will not expose people to potential carcinogens
on their rooftops, the the solar industry cannot
characterize its rise to prominence as one of truly clean
energy. §
Endnotes
1. “Global Ewaste Crisis.” Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. http://www.
svtc.org/site/PageServer?pagename=svtc_global_ewaste_crisis.
2. “Toward a Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Industry.” 2009. Silicon
Valley Toxics Coalition, January 14. http://www.svtc.org/site/
DocServer/Silicon_Valley_Toxics _Coalition__Toward_a_Just_and_
Sust.pdf?docID=821.
3. Porges, Jamie. Interview by author. Atlanta, GA, November 5, 2009.
4. Newcomb, Steve. Interview by author. Stanford, CA, October 30, 2009.
5. “Suntech Joins PV Cycle Association to Develop Solar Module
Recycling Program.” Reuters, May 7, 2009. http://www.reuters.com/
article/idUS151532+07-May-2009+PRN20090507.
6. “PV Cycle List of Goals and Declarations.” http://www.pvcycle.com/
uploads/media/Declaration_PV_CYCLE_EN.pdf.
7. Ibid.
8. Kanter, James. “Solar Promoters Push Recycling as Path to ‘Double
Green.’” New York Times Green Inc. Blog, posted January 12, 2009.
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/solar-promoters-pushrecycling-as-
path-to-double-green/.
Vol. XI | No. 2 • 13
Stanford Journal of International Relations
9. “PV Cycle List of Goals and Declarations.”
10. Osborne, Mark. “First Solar’s Market Share Set to Soar.” PV-Tech.
org, September 7, 2009. http://www.pvtech.org/news/_a/
first_solars_market_share_set_to_soar/.
11. Appleyard, David. “Light Cycle: Recycling PV Materials.” Renewable
Energy World, April 22, 2009. http://www.renewableenergyworld.
com/rea/news/print/article/2009/04/light-cycle-recycling-pvmaterials.
12. Osborne, Mark. “First Solar’s Market Share Set to Soar.”
13. “Product Lifecycle.” First Solar. http://www.firstsolar.com/product_
lifecycle.php
14. Appleyard, David.
15. Kuehnen, Eva. “Solar firms team up on recycling to beat regulators.”
Reuters, May 15, 2008. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1290559
20080515?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews.
16. Appleyard, David.
17. Fthenakis, V.M., and P.D. Moskowitz. 2008. “The Value and
Feasibility of Proactive Recycling.” National Photovoltaics
Environmental Research Center, June 18. http://www.bnl.gov/pv/abs/
abs_1 42.asp.
18. Ibid.
19. “2008 U.S. Solar Industry Year in Review.” 2009. Solar Energy
Industries Association. March. http://www.seia.org/galleries/
pdf/2008_Year_in_Review-small.pdf
20. Filler, Michael. Interview by author. Atlanta, GA, November 8, 2009.
21. Bradsher, Keith. “China Racing Ahead of U.S. in Drive to Go
Solar.” New York Times, August 24, 2009. http://www.nytimes.
com/2009/08/25/business/energy-environment/25solar.html.
22. Galbraith, Kate. “Suntech to Open Plant in Arizona.” New York
Times Green Inc. Blog, November 16, 2009. http://greeninc.blogs.
nytimes.com/2009/11/16/suntech-to-open-plant-in-arizona/?hp.
23. Schmit, Julie. “China pushes solar, wind power development.”
USA Today, November 18, 2009. http://www.usatoday.com/money/
industries/energy/environment/2009-11-17-chinasolar17_CV _N.htm
24. Ibid.
25. Cha, Ariana Eunjung. “Solar Firms Leave Waste Behind in China.”
Washington Post, March 9, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wpdyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. “What’s Raining on Solar’s Parade.” Business Week, February 6, 2006.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_06/b3970108.
htm.
29. Luque, Antonio, and Steven Hegedus. 2003. Handbook of
Photovoltaic Science and Engineering. http://books.google.com/
books?hl=en&lr=&id=u-bCMhl_JjQC&oi=fnd&pg=PT184&dq=silic
on+tetrachloride+solar+toxic+recycling&ots=JDuOc6eO4E&sig=vz9
vDGqDVmLzxXkS0UQ5KWJEJYU#v=onepage&q=&f=false.
30. Braga, A.F.B. et. al. 2007. “New processes for the production of
solar-grade polysilicon: a review.” Science Direct, October 15. http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V514R70VSG1&_user=145269&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_
sort=d&_docanchor=& view=c&_searchStrId=1069130803&_
rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000012078&_version=1&_
urlVersion=0&_userid=145269&md5=8d2f93bf24daa83d96dbf03c61
ed9c79.
31. Luque, Antonio, and Steven Hegedus.
32. Cha, Ariana Eunjung.
33. “Research Report on Chinese Polysilicon Industry 2009-2010.” China
Research and Intelligence Co., Ltd., September 28, 2009. http://www.
marketresearch.com/product/display.asp?productid=2444942.
34. Ibid.
35. Cha, Ariana Eunjung.
14 • Spring 2010
36. “New Concept for the Utilization of Silicon Tetrachloride.” China
Chemical Reporter 19, July 6, 2008: 20. http://web.ebscohost.
com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=3&sid=e9827177-fb8c-41ae-a075c8fb2d2ae3a6%40sessionmgr4.
37. “Toward a Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Industry.” 2009. Silicon
Valley Toxics Coalition, January 14. http://www.svtc.org/site/
DocServer/Silicon_Valley_Toxics _Coalition__Toward_a_Just_and_
Sust.pdf?docID=821.
38. Cha, Ariana Eunjung.
39. “New Concept for the Utilization of Silicon Tetrachloride.”
40. Cha, Ariana Eunjung. “Solar Firms Leave Waste Behind in China.”
41. Ibid.
42. McCue, Thomas. Interview by author. November 5, 2009.
43. Potash, Gerri. 2009. “China & the Future of Solar Photovoltaic
Technology.” Nerac. http://www.nerac. com/img/
BusinessInChina.pdf.
44. Campillo, Javier, and Stephen Foster. 2008. “Global Solar
Photovoltaic Industry Analysis with Focus on the Chinese
Market.” The Department of Public Technology, Malardalen
University, May 14.
45. Galbraith, Kate.
46. Bashkin, James K. “When Light is Dark: Waste from Key Solar Cell
Ingredients Damages Chinese Environment.” GreenChemistry,
March 11, 2008. http://greenchemistry.wordpress.com/2008/03/1 1/when-light-is-dark-waste-from-key-solar-cell-ingredient-damageschinese-environment/.
47. Campillo, Javier, and Stephen Foster
48. Bradsher, Keith.
49. Campillo, Javier, and Stephen Foster.
50. Galbraith, Kate.
51. “Research Report on Chinese Polysilicon Industry 2009-2010.”
52. Campillo, Javier, and Stephen Foster.
53. “Research Report on Chinese Polysilicon Industry 2009-2010.”
54. Schmit, Julie. “China pushes solar, wind power development.”
USA Today, November 18, 2009. http://www.usatoday.com/money/
industries/energy/environment/2009-11-17-chinasolar17_CV
_N.htm.
55. Ibid.
56. “Toward a Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Industry.”
57. “Editorial: President Obama in China.” New York Times, November
15, 2009. http://www.nytimes.co m/2009/11/16/opinion/16mon1.
html.
58. “Toward a Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Industry.”
59. LaMonica, Martin. “GE: Solar business is our ‘next wind.’” CNET
News, September 24, 2009. http://n ews.cnet.com/8301-11128_310360611-54.html.
60. “Toward a Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Industry.”
61. “Cadmium Use in Photovoltaics – The Perceived Risk and the
Scientific Evidence.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
http://www.nrel.gov/pv/cdte/environment.html.
62. Fthenakis, Vasilis M., and Ken Zweibel. “CdTe Photovoltaics: Real
and Perceived EHS Risks.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
March 25, 2003 http://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/NCPV_CdTe.pdf.
63. “Siltronic Corporation receives EPA’s National Environmental
Performance Award.” 2007. Siltronic Corporation, May 23.
http://www.siltronic.com/int/en/press/press-release/archiv2007/
pressinforma tion-2007-detail_7982.jsp.
64. Campillo, Javier, and Stephen Foster.
65. “Editorial: President Obama in China.”
66. Galbraith, Kate.
67. Bradsher, Keith.
68. “Suntech Joins PV Cycle Association to Develop Solar Module
Recycling Program.” Reuters, May 7, 2009. http://www.reuters.com/
article/idUS151532+07-May-2009+PRN20090507.
Solar Waste
69. “Yingli Green Energy Becomes the First China-Based Company
to Join PV Cycle.” Reuters, May 11, 2009. http://www.reuters.com/
article/pressRelease/idUS103652+11-May-2009+PRN20090511.
70. Green, Martin. “Shi Zhengrong: Heroes of the Environment.” Time,
October 17th, 2007. http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/
article/0,28804,1663317_1663322_1669932,00.html.
71. Bashkin, James K.
72. Fthenakis, Vasilis M., and Ken Zweibel. “CdTe Photovoltaics: Real
and Perceived EHS Risks."
PV Cycle and Shutterstock ©
The 'PV Cycle' pictured above focuses on end-of-life recycle issues, but, like many
other environmental plans, neglects to emphasize production waste.
Vol. XI | No. 2 • 15